Toggle sidebar

C Bo Horvat (2013, 9th overall, Vancouver)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Frank the Tank said:
No, I think the point is that how was a player ranked between 12th and 15th by certain major scouting organizations considered a steal when said player was drafted 9th. I imagine for Canuck fans it is great to think that you nabbed the next Kesler, Bergeron, Backes, Richards, etc... with your pick, but if the kid was guaranteed to reach that level (elite NHL star center) he probably would not have been ranked or picked so low. Horvat probably has just as good of chance of being the next Brassard, Brule, Sutter, Wilson, etc... as he does the players above.
Click to expand...

This is exactly what I meant. People use the term steal too liberally around here. I mean, who would you draft Horvat above that was drafted above him? Risto, maybe? For the Oilers I would, but they were both ranked in the same area.
 
People forget this guy was getting defensive zone starts with less offensively talented wingers for a lot of the season. And then in the second half he was better than PPG offensively while still maintaining that high level of defensive responsibility.

Then in the playoffs he absolutely took off offensively while still prioritizing defense and two way play. He's still got some work with his skating and strength, but he's got all the tools. And given the fact he broke out offensively in the playoffs, he'll likely get more offensive duty next year if he returns to the OHL (Which I really believe he should as London is a great organization).

I see him as a very good #2C, a guy that will shut down the oppositions top line, while still scoring 25-35G and 25-35 assists, 60-70 pts. There will be far more scoring chances for than against when he's on the ice, and his style of play lends itself to getting a boost in the playoffs when the games get tigher and ice is harder to find. He's a big game player, that's exactly what Vancouver (or any contender for that matter) needs. And he's also got a really nice player in Kesler to learn from.
 
I would wager that Carolina had him just behind Lindholm, whom they took at five. I would imagine he would have gone 5th if this class were one less forward deep, at least for Carolina.
 
I think given the Canucks cap problems and need for a cheap center for the roster as the cap shrinks, it's a done deal this kid plays in the NHL next year. He already excels in the areas that keep most young guys out of the league, their compete level and ability to play a responsible game. He's like a tank, I saw him score a goal against Windsor where the defenceman was literally hanging on him with his weight from the circle to the net and he kept going like it was nothing. His skating might not be there yet speed wise, but enough of the other things are there including a desperate "win now" NHL organization who needs to have something tangible to show for inexplicably trading their franchise goalie for peanuts.
 
Honestly don't think he'll be in the NHL next year, that extra year in an offensive role in London, and the chance to play in the WJC will do wonders for his development. Yes he could make the Canucks squad out of camp as a #3 or 4C, but then he'd hone in on his defensive game rather than working on his offense which is the next level for him.

And Vancouver already has a nice prospect in Gaunce who should fill in as a #3C. He showed big promise in the playoffs this year, has the size and smarts and defensive pedigree down as well.
 
Vagrant said:
I would wager that Carolina had him just behind Lindholm, whom they took at five. I would imagine he would have gone 5th if this class were one less forward deep, at least for Carolina.
Click to expand...

why horvat over monahan
 
Sergei Shirokov said:
No many think he is more a sure thing.

Even if he isn't one of those guys he won't bust out like that he will just be a mid lineup two-way guy.
Click to expand...

Sutter, Wilson, Brassard are not busts. They are average 2nd/3rd line centers, a few steps below the names I read being tossed around the last few pages. Not a bad result for a mid-1st round draft selection.
 
herashak said:
why horvat over monahan
Click to expand...

I'm not entirely sure as to the rationale of Carolina management, but Bob MacKenzie is the most connected media personality to Carolina's thought process and he had us with Horvat ahead of Monahan and even predicted that Carolina was going to take Lindholm or Horvat at the time of the selection, as apparently it was that close.
 
Vagrant said:
I'm not entirely sure as to the rationale of Carolina management, but Bob MacKenzie is the most connected media personality to Carolina's thought process and he had us with Horvat ahead of Monahan and even predicted that Carolina was going to take Lindholm or Horvat at the time of the selection, as apparently it was that close.
Click to expand...

pretty sure they have a Monahan type in Skinner(I know he's been lazy on D), not body wise but maybe they wanted to off set the the offense of Staal/Skinner with another two way guy like JStaal
 
Derp Kassian said:
pretty sure they have a Monahan type in Skinner(I know he's been lazy on D), not body wise but maybe they wanted to off set the the offense of Staal/Skinner with another two way guy like JStaal
Click to expand...

???????????????????????????????????????????
 
Derp Kassian said:
pretty sure they have a Monahan type in Skinner(I know he's been lazy on D), not body wise but maybe they wanted to off set the the offense of Staal/Skinner with another two way guy like JStaal
Click to expand...

Not a good comparison. Shinkaruk is our new, shiny prospect that compares stylistically to Skinner.
 
B A T M A N said:
That GM should be fired. Feaster had Poirier as a top 10 player and Jankowski as the best player in the draft. One (assistant) GMs deluded opinion means nothing.

IMO Horvat needs at least 2 seasons in the OHL. I'd say 1 OHL and 1 AHL, but the NHL is dumb for not allowing that.
Click to expand...

If he could score at the same pace that he did in the playoffs, I may disagree.

67GP, 51G, 22A, 73PTS

If he puts up stats like that, I could see him playing in the NHL after one more season of Junior. His playoff pace was pretty damn amazing though, so it will be a difficult task. He will be a year older though, and with more opportunity, so I wouldn't completely rule it out. Plus, over a regular season the competition isn't as tough. I have a hard time believing he'll only tally 22 assists in the regular season.
 
Sergei Shirokov said:
I meant more in regards to Brule & I wouldn't compare Horvat to any of those guys except maybe Sutter.
Click to expand...

Even with Sutter, his stat line at the same age was 71GP, 20G, 37A, 54PTS, with under a 0.5 PPG in the playoffs. Granted, he played on a pretty bad team, but still. He was unable to build on this stats the following season either, although he did lead his team in scoring with 49 PTS through 59 GP. He was also taken 11th overall in a terrible draft class, so that doesn't bode well for a scouts impression of him.

Not to slander Sutter, but I do have higher hopes for Horvat as an offensive player. The fact that he was able to step up and become extremely relevant on a stacked team bodes well for him.
 
The problem with Horvat is that he rode a hot hand during a small sample size to rocket up the rankings. An important sample size, sure, but a very small one nonetheless.

I'm a bit underwhelmed by this pick to be honest, I think he tops out as an OK 3rd line C in 4 to 5 years.
 
Diamonddog01 said:
The problem with Horvat is that he rode a hot hand during a small sample size to rocket up the rankings. An important sample size, sure, but a very small one nonetheless.

I'm a bit underwhelmed by this pick to be honest, I think he tops out as an OK 3rd line C in 4 to 5 years.
Click to expand...


I'm not a big believer in arguing with other posters over whether a pick is "good" or "bad" since it makes no material difference on how he will actually develop, but just wanted to address your "small sample size" argument.

Here are 2 segments of games from Horvat's draft season:

Segment 1 (start of season): 27 games 8g 8a 16pts (0.59 PPG)

Segment 2 (changes skate blades): 61 games 41g 27a 68pts (1.12 PPG)


So if you look at his season into these 2 distinct segments, he had one stretch of 21 games well under PPG (0.59) and then an extended stretch of 61 games - including playoffs many of which were against top OHL teams - where he put up a more impressive PPG (1.12).

So which of these two segments - 27 games (31% of his total games) or 61 games (69% of his total games) - do you consider the "small sample size"?
 
CanaFan said:
I'm not a big believer in arguing with other posters over whether a pick is "good" or "bad" since it makes no material difference on how he will actually develop, but just wanted to address your "small sample size" argument.

Here are 2 segments of games from Horvat's draft season:

Segment 1 (start of season): 27 games 8g 8a 16pts (0.59 PPG)

Segment 2 (changes skate blades): 61 games 41g 27a 68pts (1.12 PPG)


So if you look at his season into these 2 distinct segments, he had one stretch of 21 games well under PPG (0.59) and then an extended stretch of 61 games - including playoffs many of which were against top OHL teams - where he put up a more impressive PPG (1.12).

So which of these two segments - 27 games (31% of his total games) or 61 games (69% of his total games) - do you consider the "small sample size"?
Click to expand...
The intelligent person would consider both the 27 game stretch and 61 stretch as part of the same sample. The slow start regressed early by mid-season and seemed to have stabilized at a PGG rate and that maintained heading into the playoffs.

Producing at a PPG rate over an 88 game sample, in tough minutes @ 17 years old is great news.
 
Last edited:
Wisp said:
The intelligent person would consider both the 27 game stretch and 61 stretch as part of the same sample. The hot playoffs and slow start can be seen as regression to the mean.
Click to expand...

I agree with your post, though not with the regression to mean comment, since as a 17 year old there is no reliable estimate of what a player's true *mean* is. Teenagers are still developing and so progression is an innate part of their numbers. His numbers as a 15 yo or 16 yo do not really constitute a reliable estimate of what his mean *is*. Rather we should look at all parts of his season (as you stated) but when a player shows a sustained scoring pace (over 61 games which is nearly a full OHL season) I don't see any reason to view it is a deviation or "hot streak". It is what it is, namely an extended period of strong play. Is it 100% predictive of his future play? Of course not, but this is the case for any player be it CHL or NHL. But it does show that Horvat is _capable_ of extended periods of strong offensive play. The fact that his improvement came following an identified milestone - namely switching his skate blades - suggests that the first 27 games were actually the outlier (since he is unlikely to switch back to his earlier style) and not the 61 games of play after he switched.

I'm not strongly advocating that Horvat will or won't develop a strong offensive game, simply that posters who like to use the "small sample size" argument are factually incorrect. The small sample size was his sub-PPG level (27 games) and the larger sample size was his plus-PPG level (61 games). No opinion being shown here, merely reconciling the facts for some people.

Wisp said:
Producing at a PPG rate over an 88 game sample, in tough minutes @ 17 years old is great news.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
I forget I'm not talking about NHL players right. Interesting you have the skate change as a sign post on where the upward trend begins.
 
Wisp said:
I forget I'm not talking about NHL players right. Interesting you have the skate change as a sign post on where the upward trend begins.
Click to expand...


It was something I read in a scouting report (McKeens maybe?) that pointed to Horvat switching to a lighter skate after his first 27 games which coincided with his improved offensive play. It could be a coincidence but I tend to see it as an event to explain the sudden and sustained increase in his offensive production. 61 games is a long time to get "hot" or "lucky". Of course this all means nothing if he doesn't continue or improve this pace next season. But I believe it bodes well for his chances of doing so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom